Should we make the corporate tax rate 0%?

[thereisnospoon]

Somehow you assume that a solution that would work for one person must therefore work for 30 million people

There are not 30 million businesses that can be started. There are not 30 million better paying jobs out there

There are 30 million better jobs that could be made with more motivated employees. The problem is that people like you who punch a clock, do as little as possible all day, then are on the road home 2 minutes after your shift end don't create any value, you just fill the low end jobs that are created by someone else. So you have to just wait for us to do it.

I like that

Typical Republican. Blame the employees

Fat, lazy, uneducated....need motivation
No wonder we pay them so little

Yeah. That's the popular version among the envious.
Everyone in this country is born with the opportunity to achieve anything they wish to the best of their abilities and talents.
When an Immigrant can step off an airplane with 30 dollars in his pocket, work for the next ten years at menial jobs and ten years later can become a millionaire, that is an example \of the American dream. Anyone can do it if they put their mind to it.
Felix Sabates. A Cuban immigrant that came to this country in the early 60's worked crummy jobs and learned how business works. He decided to use the knowledge he acquired to his advantage and by the time he was 40 was a millionaire.\
Is it possible for every person to accomplish this? Not probable. Possible? Yes...
That's America.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I like that

Typical Republican. Blame the employees

Fat, lazy, uneducated....need motivation
No wonder we pay them so little

Well shit, RW. Why make them work at all? Lets just give them enough to live on from the national treasury, its only FAIR.

Well?

Is that your parties view of the American worker?

Yeah. It is ....

 

[thereisnospoon]

I agree

It is as stupid as wanting 0% tax for corporations

But what if a 0% tax rate would attract businesses from all around the globe to setup shop in the United States?

You do realize we don't manufacture here much anymore, the job market is crap, and we really should explore some ideas on how to change that..

Same question

Who makes up for the lost tax revenue?

What lost revenue?

 

[thereisnospoon]

I agree

It is as stupid as wanting 0% tax for corporations

But what if a 0% tax rate would attract businesses from all around the globe to setup shop in the United States?

You do realize we don't manufacture here much anymore, the job market is crap, and we really should explore some ideas on how to change that..

Same question

Who makes up for the lost tax revenue?

Why do you people worry so much about how much government has to spend?

 

[thereisnospoon]

I agree

It is as stupid as wanting 0% tax for corporations

Do you really think that corporations pay federal income tax out or profits? Are you totally ignorant to accounting? Taxes are a cost of doing business, they are on the expense side of the balance sheet. They are included in the prices of every product sold by the corporation. Consumers pay corporate taxes, not corporations.

And you presume that those lower taxes will trickle down to the consumer in the form of lower prices?

Fool me once.....shame on you
Fool me twice....um...um.....Won't get fooled again

Absolutely. If the tax code were different, consumer would be paying much more.
Do you think a vacuum cleaner should cost $1?

 

[OnePercenter]

Large arbitrary increases in wages, large increases in pensions, government trying to hold down costs by fiat and capital controls are exactly what basket cases like Argentina and Venezuela have tried today and in the past, and the results are always the same. They are populist failures. In fact, capital controls are usually implemented because of your other policies as a response to the economic incompetence as capital flees the country.

In 1900, Argentina was the seventh largest economy in the world and Canada is the eighth. Both are economies are at the end of the hemisphere, both rely heavily on natural resources, both border large neighbors, and both had large influxes of immigration in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In fact, Argentina was a solid economy until 1930. Then, it slid into populism and autarky, turning inward to populist demagogues who promised "fairness" to "the people." Instead, they destroyed their economies with inflation and capital flight. Compare that to Canada, which is today the 10th largest economy in the world, with a per capita income more than double Argentina. It's fascinating.

Economic populists know neither history nor economics.

So no comparison.

"No comparison."

Which is why those countries keep making the same mistake again and again and again.

They think it will be different this time.

You're right, there is no comparison.

All my plan does is change the same dollars into different columns with a benefit to business, employees, and the economy.

 

[RandomVariable]

There are 30 million better jobs that could be made with more motivated employees. The problem is that people like you who punch a clock, do as little as possible all day, then are on the road home 2 minutes after your shift end don't create any value, you just fill the low end jobs that are created by someone else. So you have to just wait for us to do it.

I like that

Typical Republican. Blame the employees

Fat, lazy, uneducated....need motivation
No wonder we pay them so little

Yeah. That's the popular version among the envious.
Everyone in this country is born with the opportunity to achieve anything they wish to the best of their abilities and talents.
When an Immigrant can step off an airplane with 30 dollars in his pocket, work for the next ten years at menial jobs and ten years later can become a millionaire, that is an example \of the American dream. Anyone can do it if they put their mind to it.
Felix Sabates. A Cuban immigrant that came to this country in the early 60's worked crummy jobs and learned how business works. He decided to use the knowledge he acquired to his advantage and by the time he was 40 was a millionaire.\
Is it possible for every person to accomplish this? Not probable. Possible? Yes...
That's America.

American Experience . The Richest Man in the World: Andrew Carnegie . Gilded Age | PBS

Gilded Age


"What is the chief end of man?--to get rich. In what way?--dishonestly if we can; honestly if we must."
-- Mark Twain-1871

During the "Gilded Age," every man was a potential Andrew Carnegie, and Americans who achieved wealth celebrated it as never before. In New York, the opera, the theatre, and lavish parties consumed the ruling class' leisure hours. Sherry's Restaurant hosted formal horseback dinners for the New York Riding Club. Mrs. Stuyvesant Fish once threw a dinner party to honor her dog who arrived sporting a $15,000 diamond collar.

While the rich wore diamonds, many wore rags. In 1890, 11 million of the nation's 12 million families earned less than $1200 per year; of this group, the average annual income was $380, well below the poverty line. Rural Americans and new immigrants crowded into urban areas. Tenements spread across city landscapes, teeming with crime and filth. Americans had sewing machines, phonographs, skyscrapers, and even electric lights, yet most people labored in the shadow of poverty.

To those who worked in Carnegie's mills and in the nation's factories and sweatshops, the lives of the millionaires seemed immodest indeed. An economist in 1879 noted "a widespread feeling of unrest and brooding revolution." Violent strikes and riots wracked the nation through the turn of the century. The middle class whispered fearfully of "carnivals of revenge."

For immediate relief, the urban poor often turned to political machines. During the first years of the Gilded Age, Boss Tweed's Tammany Hall provided more services to the poor than any city government before it, although far more money went into Tweed's own pocket. Corruption extended to the highest levels of government. During Ulysses S. Grant's presidency, the president and his cabinet were implicated in the Credit Mobilier, the Gold Conspiracy, the Whiskey Ring, and the notorious Salary Grab.

Europeans were aghast. America may have had money and factories, they felt, but it lacked sophistication. When French prime minister Georges Clemenceau visited, he said the nation had gone from a stage of barbarism to one of decadence -- without achieving any civilization between the two.

 

[rightwinger]

But what if a 0% tax rate would attract businesses from all around the globe to setup shop in the United States?

You do realize we don't manufacture here much anymore, the job market is crap, and we really should explore some ideas on how to change that..

Same question

Who makes up for the lost tax revenue?

What lost revenue?

Revenue that is lost from now getting nothing from our corporations

You know, when they used to contribute to this country?

 

[Political Junky]

Same question

Who makes up for the lost tax revenue?

What lost revenue?

Revenue that is lost from now getting nothing from our corporations

You know, when they used to contribute to this country?

Yes, will they ever again?

 

[Erand7899]

There you have it.....The Home Run of Republican policy

0% Tax Rates
No Government Regulation
Low paid workers with no benefits

What more could you ask for?

What you have is a partisan hack putting up strawmen to attempt to refute logic. I do not argue that any tax beyond corporate taxes should be zero. I do not argue that there should be no government regulations. I argue that regulations should be reasonable. Nor, do I argue that workers should be low paid and sans benefits. Those are all strawmen generated by you as a substitute for any intelligent counter argument.

Union shop states force workers into unions, whether they want to be in unions or not. Is that your idea of liberalism?

Taxes as a means of punishment for success. Is that your idea of liberalism.

Tens of thousands of pages of regulations that cost business billions of dollars and hurt jobs. Is that your idea of liberalism?

Yea.....we know how much you care about the workers
and those "pesky" regulations are just a liberals way of pissing you off. Nobody ever has chemical spills anyway

Yea, I care about the workers, Dumbass. I used to be one, and I was also a local union officer. So, save your bullcrap for the others of your ilk. I like unions when they stay in the business of worker/employer relations and out of politics. However, I do not agree with forcing anyone who does not want to belong to a union, being forced to pay union dues. Is that hard for you to understand?

We have tens of thousands of pages of business regulations and more coming every day. No one can even read them all, let alone ensure compliance with all of them. Can you see that as a problem for business, or are you so full of the kool-aid that you see nothing that you don't want to see?

 

[Toro]

So no comparison.

"No comparison."

Which is why those countries keep making the same mistake again and again and again.

They think it will be different this time.

You're right, there is no comparison.

All my plan does is change the same dollars into different columns with a benefit to business, employees, and the economy.

No, it does not. Apart from elimination of business subsidies, your suggestions would lead to inflation, unemployment and capital distortions.

Your suggestions have been tried. They have failed. The only sensible one is the elimination of business subsidies. But otherwise, your suggestions have been tried repeatedly around the world and have damaged national economies.

 

[OnePercenter]

"No comparison."

Which is why those countries keep making the same mistake again and again and again.

They think it will be different this time.

You're right, there is no comparison.

All my plan does is change the same dollars into different columns with a benefit to business, employees, and the economy.

No, it does not. Apart from elimination of business subsidies, your suggestions would lead to inflation, unemployment and capital distortions.

Your suggestions have been tried. They have failed. The only sensible one is the elimination of business subsidies. But otherwise, your suggestions have been tried repeatedly around the world and have damaged national economies.

I'll go slow for you.

Under my plan, a small business person has five employees. The taxes and fees that the business person pays is deductible 1 for 1 with employee expenses. The taxes and fees have now been reduced to zero with deductions of two employees. The other three employees are 100% subsidized. The business owner now has no taxes and only pays for two of the five employees. How is this bad?

With prices capped at January 1, 2009 levels for goods and services where's the inflation?

 

[Toro]

You're right, there is no comparison.

All my plan does is change the same dollars into different columns with a benefit to business, employees, and the economy.

No, it does not. Apart from elimination of business subsidies, your suggestions would lead to inflation, unemployment and capital distortions.

Your suggestions have been tried. They have failed. The only sensible one is the elimination of business subsidies. But otherwise, your suggestions have been tried repeatedly around the world and have damaged national economies.

I'll go slow for you.

Under my plan, a small business person has five employees. The taxes and fees that the business person pays is deductible 1 for 1 with employee expenses. The taxes and fees have now been reduced to zero with deductions of two employees. The other three employees are 100% subsidized. The business owner now has no taxes and only pays for two of the five employees. How is this bad?

With prices capped at January 1, 2009 levels for goods and services where's the inflation?

Those expenses for the employees are already deductible.

Your price controls are extraordinarily dumb. That is EXACTLY what basket cases like Argentina and Venezuela are doing, except they're not doing it on everything, as you propose. It is such stupid, stupid policy. It has been tried thousands of times and it fails thousands of times.

And your inflation comes from jacking up wages by 200%. Then, with you fixing prices, you create shortages.

You've never taken an economics class, have you?

 

[Political Junky]

What you have is a partisan hack putting up strawmen to attempt to refute logic. I do not argue that any tax beyond corporate taxes should be zero. I do not argue that there should be no government regulations. I argue that regulations should be reasonable. Nor, do I argue that workers should be low paid and sans benefits. Those are all strawmen generated by you as a substitute for any intelligent counter argument.

Union shop states force workers into unions, whether they want to be in unions or not. Is that your idea of liberalism?

Taxes as a means of punishment for success. Is that your idea of liberalism.

Tens of thousands of pages of regulations that cost business billions of dollars and hurt jobs. Is that your idea of liberalism?

Yea.....we know how much you care about the workers
and those "pesky" regulations are just a liberals way of pissing you off. Nobody ever has chemical spills anyway

Yea, I care about the workers, Dumbass. I used to be one, and I was also a local union officer. So, save your bullcrap for the others of your ilk. I like unions when they stay in the business of worker/employer relations and out of politics. However, I do not agree with forcing anyone who does not want to belong to a union, being forced to pay union dues. Is that hard for you to understand?

We have tens of thousands of pages of business regulations and more coming every day. No one can even read them all, let alone ensure compliance with all of them. Can you see that as a problem for business, or are you so full of the kool-aid that you see nothing that you don't want to see?

This brought to mind Tallulah Bankhead in "Royal Scandal".
http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2012/nov/01/a-royal-scandal-catherine-russia
Society

Chernoff is just 24 to Catherine's 33 (Bankhead looks, and was, 10 years older than that). The empress soon discovers that dating an earnest younger man is a high-maintenance hobby. Chernoff keeps breaking off from smooching to harp on about the state of the Russian poor. "I've been thinking of nothing else but peasants," she reassures him. "Peasants, peasants and peasants." "They are good," he says. "They're really the backbone of the nation." "Yes, I know," she replies. "There's nothing like a good peasant."

 

[OnePercenter]

No, it does not. Apart from elimination of business subsidies, your suggestions would lead to inflation, unemployment and capital distortions.

Your suggestions have been tried. They have failed. The only sensible one is the elimination of business subsidies. But otherwise, your suggestions have been tried repeatedly around the world and have damaged national economies.

I'll go slow for you.

Under my plan, a small business person has five employees. The taxes and fees that the business person pays is deductible 1 for 1 with employee expenses. The taxes and fees have now been reduced to zero with deductions of two employees. The other three employees are 100% subsidized. The business owner now has no taxes and only pays for two of the five employees. How is this bad?

With prices capped at January 1, 2009 levels for goods and services where's the inflation?

Those expenses for the employees are already deductible.

Not 1 to 1.

Your price controls are extraordinarily dumb. That is EXACTLY what basket cases like Argentina and Venezuela are doing, except they're not doing it on everything, as you propose. It is such stupid, stupid policy. It has been tried thousands of times and it fails thousands of times.

Not like this.

And your inflation comes from jacking up wages by 200%. Then, with you fixing prices, you create shortages.

Inflation is a persistent increase in the general price level of goods and services in an economy over a period of time. Goods are capped and employment costs are lessened.

You've never taken an economics class, have you?

MBA, Columbia Business School - Columbia University

 

[Politico]

No it should be the same as everyone elses.

 

[editec]

Have any of you ever read Horatio Alger stories?

He knew what many of you apparently do not.

The "hero" of his stories usually becomea RICH when, after working hard, he is rewarded with wealth by marrying the RICH MAN'S DAUGHTER!

 

[Redfish]

Again

Who pays? You are going to cut spending over time. Who makes up for the lost revenue from corporations?

We hear this all the time. Cut taxes and we will make up for it by eliminating some undefined "gubmint waste"

If corporations are as efficient as you claim. Paying taxes should not be a burden

What the hell, I'm gonna go ahead and answer this, because I can't stand to see it just hanging there.

This isn't about cutting costs or government waste.

Lowering corporate taxes, combined with the resulting MASSIVE repatriation of capital and the resulting FLOOD of foreign capital (which would have been taxed in those countries), would significantly increase the velocity of money within both corporations and the economy in general. The corporations would be far more likely to put the money to use - they would have to, because their shareholders would appropriately demand it when the flood of NEW capital hits.

In other words, the dam would burst. Right now it probably will not. GDP estimates for 2014 are decreasing as we speak, across the board, and for damn good reason.

Then, the resulting and massive increase in capital spending would trigger the regular chain reaction of stuff - higher demand and competition for employees (and as some of know, higher demand and limited supply will cause wage increases), higher payrolls, more income taxes being collected, more sales taxes being collected, on and on.

Obama knows this, which is why he is talking about lowering corporate tax rates. He can do it only so much, of course, because he doesn't want to piss off his base, which is clearly and badly under-informed about even the most fundamental business economics.

I'm gonna try to avoid this thread for a while - I may not be able to - but my freakin' head is about to explode.

.

Oh the wonders of Supply Side Economics

If only we would cut taxes on the "job creators"...there would be an influx of new capital, more jobs, higher wages.....Wait for it....wait for it

A RISING economic tide lifting all boats

Yes, it does, always has, always will. Socialism does not work, RW, never has, never will

 

[Toro]

Not 1 to 1.

Which employee expenses are not tax deductible?

Inflation is a persistent increase in the general price level of goods and services in an economy over a period of time. Goods are capped and employment costs are lessened.

When you

a.) jack up costs, then
b.) cap prices

You get shortages because businesses cannot make enough of a profit and capital investment is destroyed.

The reason why inflation happens in basket cases like Venezuela and Argentina who follow your policies is twofold. First, as costs go up, businesses raise prices where they can, since the government can't control everything, or incur the fines for rising prices. Second, the economy begins to slow, contract or even collapse, so the government borrows more. Eventually, they start printing money to meet their obligations.

The inflation rate in Argentina and Venezuela today is 30%-40%.

MBA, Columbia Business School - Columbia University

Ah, "An Introduction to Economics" for the poets.

My mistake.

 

[rightwinger]

What the hell, I'm gonna go ahead and answer this, because I can't stand to see it just hanging there.

This isn't about cutting costs or government waste.

Lowering corporate taxes, combined with the resulting MASSIVE repatriation of capital and the resulting FLOOD of foreign capital (which would have been taxed in those countries), would significantly increase the velocity of money within both corporations and the economy in general. The corporations would be far more likely to put the money to use - they would have to, because their shareholders would appropriately demand it when the flood of NEW capital hits.

In other words, the dam would burst. Right now it probably will not. GDP estimates for 2014 are decreasing as we speak, across the board, and for damn good reason.

Then, the resulting and massive increase in capital spending would trigger the regular chain reaction of stuff - higher demand and competition for employees (and as some of know, higher demand and limited supply will cause wage increases), higher payrolls, more income taxes being collected, more sales taxes being collected, on and on.

Obama knows this, which is why he is talking about lowering corporate tax rates. He can do it only so much, of course, because he doesn't want to piss off his base, which is clearly and badly under-informed about even the most fundamental business economics.

I'm gonna try to avoid this thread for a while - I may not be able to - but my freakin' head is about to explode.

.

Oh the wonders of Supply Side Economics

If only we would cut taxes on the "job creators"...there would be an influx of new capital, more jobs, higher wages.....Wait for it....wait for it

A RISING economic tide lifting all boats

Yes, it does, always has, always will. Socialism does not work, RW, never has, never will

It did until Republicans figured a way for the rising tide to only lift the yachts